The Divinity of the title Son of Man.

[synergy]

Thank you, Synergy, for this good video. I am reviewing it and will provide my comments.

On 12:13, Nabeel Qureshi makes an unsupported statement: that "the Bible says repeatedly that only one comes in the clouds of heaven, and that is Yahweh". I have looked for that in the Old Testament, and found not a single instance of such statement.

I see several OT references where God came and guided the Israelites during the day on a pillar of cloud, on their way to the promised land.

On 12:43, Qureshi is reading from Daniel that the Son of Man receives authority, glory and sovereign power when presented before the Ancient of Days. Qureshi does not pause to ask himself or the audience: If the Son of Man is God, why would he need to be given such authority, glory and sovereign power? If God by definition is All Glorious, All Powerful, why would He need to receive those attributes, and Who would bestow them to God?

We are not Muslims to think that the Cross was not necessary for Christ to gain authority over Hades for our salvation.

On 13:45, Quresih tries to persuade us that the fact that all nations "serve/worship" the Son of Man is indicative of its deity. He calls our attention to the word "Pelach" which can mean not only "worship" but "serve" and "pay reverence". He admits that Daniel is the only Book of the OT that has portions written in Aramaic, but then... what happens? he piggybacks on the Greek word latreuo (based on the Septuagint) to state that it is used 130 times across the Bible and that it is used exclusively in reference to service to God.

Whether he piggybacks or not, "latreuo" is worship.

Well, if translators of the Septuagint chose "latreuo" over other possible terms like proskuneo, that was their choice and problem. Querish piggybacking is, therefore, in conflict with his own assessment of the uniqueness of the use of Aramaic in the OT, and the other meanings of "pelach".

Actually, it's the Septuagint that becomes our problem because that was that OT that received the Apostle's stamp of approval since they overwhelmingly quoted from it and not from any other OT (Hebrew, Masoretic, nor Aramaic).

Qureshi is also missing the fact on how kings honored somebody (please remember how the king honors Mardocei in the Book of Esther). He is missing the fact that emperors were assigned a political form of "divinity" based on the fact that they could rule over multiple nations, languages and religions (remember Alexander the Great and the Persian emperors).

Have you wondered why emperors were often considered gods? Were their subjects so silly to think that a god would need to sleep and defecate? Were they so silly to think that a god could get sick, need doctors and die as any mortal?
Of course not. What they believed is that the only explanation of the incredible power of these emperors, which extended beyond the borders of each national god, is that the gods had shared with this emperor their divinity. They thought they should be sort of demi-gods.

That's Paganism. We have evolved past that paganistic thinking.

On 14:45, Qureshi explains that while many people think that "Son of God" is the title assigned to the divine part of Jesus while "Son of Man" is the title given to the human part, from the Jewish perspective is backwards. He says "Son of God" is a title given to prominent humans, such as Solomon. Quershi is right on that. What he is not right about is to think that then "Son of Man" is a title for God. Never ever Jewish rabbis or scholars thought that the "Son of Man" of Daniel 7:14 was God. The Messiah has never been expected to be God.

That's their problem. Too bad for them.

In 15:50, Qureshi resorts to Psalm 110:1 to say that, in the Semitic context, sitting at the right of God means that God is telling Jesus "Rule the universe with me".
However, that's absolutely not the context of Psalm 110:1, nor the Semitic context whatsoever. God is promising David that God will crush David's enemies. God will be the protector of David, the source of David's power. So, the Messiah, as seed of David, would also receive from God such power and protection. No hint that David was going to become God, and no hint that his seed would become God.

In fact, Qureshi says that God is trying to say in Psalm 110:1 "You'll be my heir". How is that Qureshi misses the fact that God does not need to inherit anything, because He already possesses everything? If Jesus is a heir of God, by definition He is not the original owner, the source of wealth. He is not God.

Are you seriously saying that it's David who will sit at the right hand of God's Throne? Seriously? What about all the verses that say that it was Christ and only Christ who sits at the right hand of God?

In the end of the video, Qureshi draws our attention to Philippians 2:5-11.
Again, I don't understand why he misses altogether that Paul is clearly distinguishing between God and Jesus. God is one thing, Jesus is another thing.

• Verse 6. Christ Jesus is said being "in the form of God". In other letter it is said to be "the visible image of the invisible God". All these are ways to say that Jesus is a Manifestation of God, not God. Why doesn't Paul say without hesitation that Christ Jesus is God? Well, because Paul treats God as a different being. Let's see:
• Verse 9. God exalted Jesus. Who exalted Jesus? God. Who is God, then?
• Verse 10 and 11. Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is... is... what? God? No. Lord. Lord? Why not God? Well, because God is another being, identified in unequivocal terms at the end of the verse: "God the Father".
• Verse 11, further reflection. What for should everyone bow to Jesus? The answer at the end of the verse is: "To the Glory of God the Father". If Jesus were God, the purpose of worshiping him would not be to please or give glory to another Person. Worshiping God is a purpose in itself. That's why it is the First Commandment.

Huh? Didn't we just witness Psalms 110:1 where God is called Lord? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

BEING VS PERSON

Recognizing that the Trinity is one of the most difficult concepts to explain does not stop our brother Qureshi from giving it a try, though.
He says in 5:00 that "God is One in Being, but Three in Person". What is the difference between "being" and "person"? Well, he proceeds to explain it: "Being" refers to what somebody is, and "person" to who somebody is. So, what am I? A human being. Who am I? Pancho Frijoles, a 57 year-old male, Mexican, married, etc. So, being refers to the "essence" while person to the specific atributes of a particular mind and life.

Is Qureshi telling us that "God" is a category in which three persons (three minds, three lives, three wills) can fit ? A category defined by a divine essence?
If billions of human beings all share the same human essence, does this make us all one being? Well, that is true metaphorically (and very Baha'i, for that matter).... but literally, we know we are a family, a group, a species, who encompasses billions of different minds, wills, lives, choices.

If all three Persons of the Holy Trinity have deified wills (and they do) then there can exist one and only one divine will. It is impossible for deified Persons to have conflicting wills as we incorrigible humans display each and every second of our lives.

If God for Trinitarians a family, class, species or institution of three persons? In that case, God would not be very different to the Greek Pantheon. Greeks could also have explained that all their numerous gods shared the same essence (all were divine), so all of them were one Being, God.

ROLE VS ESSENCE

Then Qureshi try to explain us that, when Jesus says "The Father is Greater than me", the difference between Jesus and the Father is a difference of roles. Jesus had a role, that implied to live as a human, while the Father had a role, that implied to live as... well... God ! (not too hard to guess).

He goes on giving an example to illustrate his point: Obama and him. Obama is greater than him as President, but not greater than him as human being. It is a difference in role, but not in nature. By the same token, the Father is greater than Jesus in role, but not in essence.

What Qureshi is missing, is that the role of Obama did not come from his essence as human being. Presidential powers were not inherent in Obama's genes or mind. Since those powers were not inherent, Obama had to play a role, assigned by the Constitution and voters. Before Obama was president, he had no rule over Qureshi... and once Obama has come out of office, he cannot rule any more over Qureshi.

In contrast, The Father does not play a role of God. He is God. Nobody assigned him that role, nor gave him his powers. They are inherent to his condition as God. That's why, although Jesus has finished his mission and has been exalted, he still refers to his Father in the Book of Revelation as "my God". Jesus never claimed to have inherent powers.

You mixed up Nabeel's explanation. It's the Personhood role of the Father that is different than the Personhood role of the Son. The role is tied to Personhood. By Essence, the Father and Son are equals.

Dear Fred, @synergy and @civic:

Revelation 1:6, which precedes Revelation 1:7 and 1:13, shows in unequivocal terms that that the exalted Jesus has a God, his God, so can't be God.
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

There is no single instance in the whole Bible in which the Father is declared to have a God, or to have Jesus as his God.
In contrast, there are 10 instances in which Christ is said to have a God, and in 8 of them such God is called explicitly by one name: The Father.

If there is God the Father then who is God the Son? You can't have a Father without a Son, now can you?

The evidence is overwhelming. What is the Bible teaching us?
Christ worships Our Father, while Our Father worships no one.

Please reflect on this.
I'm not making a call to any of you to reject any of the beliefs you hold. Just to open your heart to your brothers who think differently. They are not fools. They are not deliberately blind. They are not perverse. They are interested in loving Jesus and following Him just as you.

We are saying the same thing to you.

That is why Christ is also presented in the Bible as a heir, and as a Prince or a Conqueror. Remember that Paul says that Christ brings captives along, and delivers the Kingdom to God, so that God can be everything to everyone.

Those titles take nothing away from the fact that Christ declared Himself the "I Am" OT God who existed before Abraham was alive. This is a massive stumbling block for all Arian faiths.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

..the Lord Jesus is a proper recipient of a doxology which proves He is God.

The author of Revelation doesn't agree with such statement. Otherwise he wouldn't say that Jesus has his God.
God can't have a God, by definition.

The two thesis you've proposed

1. "being a proper recipient of prayer" = proves He is God
2. "being a proper recipient of doxology" = proves He is God

are not supported by the same authors of such prayers (Stephen, Paul) or doxologies (Paul and the author of the Book of Revelation).

 

[Fred]

The two thesis you've proposed

1. "being a proper recipient of prayer" = proves He is God

are not supported by the same authors

Irrelevant, because it is supported elsewhere in the Bible which is equally authoritative.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

We are saying the same thing to you.

Good morning, synergy.

I thank you for your answer above in response to my comment from post 18: "I'm not making a call to any of you to reject any of the beliefs you hold. Just to open your heart to your brothers who think differently. They are not fools. They are not deliberately blind. They are not perverse. They are interested in loving Jesus and following Him just as you."

I agree with you that such should be the basis of all our interactions.
I respect the intellectual and spiritual development of my Trinitarian brothers and sisters. I do believe that these debates have nothing to do with our individual salvation, which is an undeserved gift of God towards any person humble enough to accept it.

I do get worried, though, when @Fred says he does not consider Christians those fellows who do not believe in the Trinity. That would include members of several Unitarian churches. I remember to have read in the rules of the Forum that no Christian should disqualify another Christian on the basis of a doctrinal disagreement.

Whatever the most intimate nature of God, Jesus, and how this operates in the grace conferred to men for salvation, God and Jesus stay well beyond what our tiny minds can fathom... well beyond we claim to understand.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Irrelevant, because it is supported elsewhere in the Bible which is equally authoritative.

That "elsewhere in the Bible" does not exist, unless you bring other quotes from other biblical authors that show individuals praying to Jesus, or making doxologies around Jesus. Bring to the Forum those additional quotes, and we can examine what their authors think about Jesus being God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

If there is God the Father then who is God the Son? You can't have a Father without a Son, now can you?

Who is "God the Mother", then? You can't have a Father and a Son without a Mother (which is the argument of our Mormon friends).

There is no "God the Son" in the Bible.
There is no "God the Mother" in the Bible.
There is just God, and when the Bible wants to identify Him by name, it uses "El", "Elohim", "Yahweh", "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", "The Ancient of Days" or "The Father".

Nabeel himself says in the video that "Son of God" is not a title related to Jesus deity, as it has been applied to other characters in the Bible.
If "Son of God", which is present in the Bible, does not relate to Jesus deity, less so a term that does not even exist, like "God The Son".

 

[Fred]

That "elsewhere in the Bible" does not exist,

You are confused because other passages of the Bible are equally inspired of by God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Those titles take nothing away from the fact that Christ declared Himself the "I Am" OT God who existed before Abraham was alive. This is a massive stumbling block for all Arian faiths.

This is about Christ preexistence. A different topic.
As far as I know, Arius believed in Christ preexistence, and so do our Jehovah Witnesses friends.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You are confused because other passages of the Bible are equally inspired of by God.

I know. That's why I am asking you to bring additional evidence of people praying to Jesus and doxologies around Jesus, so that we can examine what these inspired authors believed on the subject.

 

[Fred]

That's why I am asking you to bring additional evidence of people praying to Jesus

You have already admitted praying to Jesus is okay.

This proves Jesus is God for to pray is to render latreuō (Acts 2:37) which is due unto God alone (Luke 4:8).

 

[synergy]

Good morning, synergy.

I thank you for your answer above in response to my comment from post 18: "I'm not making a call to any of you to reject any of the beliefs you hold. Just to open your heart to your brothers who think differently. They are not fools. They are not deliberately blind. They are not perverse. They are interested in loving Jesus and following Him just as you."

I agree with you that such should be the basis of all our interactions.
I respect the intellectual and spiritual development of my Trinitarian brothers and sisters. I do believe that these debates have nothing to do with our individual salvation, which is an undeserved gift of God towards any person humble enough to accept it.

I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful questions.

About a decade ago, I came to a point in life where I opened myself up to every and all opinions on truth. You could say it was a mid-life crisis. I was blessed in that I was not swayed one way or another by my family or circumstances. My family circumstances allowed me to do that. They trusted me in whichever spiritual path I took. So my approach was to read the Bible by what it actually said. Doing so exposed how very little I understood about much of the Bible. It caused me to dig deeply into the Koine Greek language for the purposes of harmonizing verses which at first glance looked contradictory. I am a person who cannot stand contradictory views of truths in my mind and I will ponder incessantly that "contradiction" until I harmonize it with the rest of the Bible. I am still on that path and your thoughtful questions help me a lot.

I do get worried, though, when @Fred says he does not consider Christians those fellows who do not believe in the Trinity. That would include members of several Unitarian churches. I remember to have read in the rules of the Forum that no Christian should disqualify another Christian on the basis of a doctrinal disagreement.

Whatever the most intimate nature of God, Jesus, and how this operates in the grace conferred to men for salvation, God and Jesus stay well beyond what our tiny minds can fathom... well beyond we claim to understand.

I have 2 personal thoughts on that:

First Thought:

This to me is the Bible's biggest and most important question for everyone:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Everyone needs to be extremely careful how they answer that question.

Second Thought:

It's way above my pay grade to say who exactly is saved and who is not. That is purely God's domain.

 

[mikesw]

Good morning, synergy.
...

I do get worried, though, when @Fred says he does not consider Christians those fellows who do not believe in the Trinity. That would include members of several Unitarian churches. I remember to have read in the rules of the Forum that no Christian should disqualify another Christian on the basis of a doctrinal disagreement.
....

Our general concern here is the same. We are worried about the Unitarian churches predominantly sharing some message that does not lead a person to justification through Christ Jesus and especially does not have any basis for thinking there is justification through Christ. There is a degree of messed-up thinking that actually obstructs a person from the true justification through Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[mikesw]

Who is "God the Mother", then? You can't have a Father and a Son without a Mother (which is the argument of our Mormon friends).

There is no "God the Son" in the Bible.
There is no "God the Mother" in the Bible.
There is just God, and when the Bible wants to identify Him by name, it uses "El", "Elohim", "Yahweh", "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", "The Ancient of Days" or "The Father".

Nabeel himself says in the video that "Son of God" is not a title related to Jesus deity, as it has been applied to other characters in the Bible.
If "Son of God", which is present in the Bible, does not relate to Jesus deity, less so a term that does not even exist, like "God The Son".

You will be busy worshiping all the Mormons since they all become gods. You don't have to have a "God the Mother" for scripture to present a concept of relationship of the Son and the Father. We are given knowledge in the way we can comprehend Christ Jesus. Our knowledge of the Godhead is given us in analogical sense which means some details like a mother being required is to fail to understand the breadth of application of the analogy. The Mormons then just refuse to accept scriptural testimony. You are welcome to do the same, but such rejection will not be to your advantage.
We additionally know God identifies himself as "I am." Christ also identifies himself as "I am." We repeatedly share that but that point is constantly overlooked by those who want to deny who Christ is.

 

[civic]

You have already admitted praying to Jesus is okay.

This proves Jesus is God for to pray is to render latreuō (Acts 2:37) which is due unto God alone (Luke 4:8).

Yes indeed and any Jew praying to anyone but God would violate the 1st commandment and be a sin of idolatry.

 

[Fred]

Yes indeed and any Jew praying to anyone but God would violate the 1st commandment and be a sin of idolatry.

1. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef).

2. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).

 

[synergy]

This is about Christ preexistence. A different topic.
As far as I know, Arius believed in Christ preexistence, and so do our Jehovah Witnesses friends.

Several moons ago, I created a new Thread called "The continued spread of the Arian Heresy (that Jesus is not God) in JW and Unitarian Churches."

I approached it from a historical point of view, the fact that the heresy was exterminated many centuries ago by Saint Athanasius and that it's been unearthed from its burial plot by history-illiterate (and anti-Biblical) people such as JWs and Unitarians. Muslims can also be grouped in that history illiterate group. We all know that they are viciously anti-Biblical. Here is the link:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/the-continued-spread-of-the-arian-heresy-that-jesus-is-not-god-in-jw-and-unitarian-churches.253/post-5111

 

[civic]

1. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P. A. Verhoef).

2. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty one with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).

Amen and imho the best theological dictionary reference. I have both hard copies and electronic.

 

[Fred]

Amen and imho the best theological dictionary reference. I have both hard copies and electronic.

Lots of good information.

 

[Fred]

Richard N. Longenecker: There is no commandment in the Jewish Scriptures that says simply "Thou shalt pray!" Rather, what one finds is a verse like Deut 11:13, which calls on Israel "to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul." The rabbis of the Talmud asked about this verse: "What kind of service is it that takes place in the heart"? And they answered their own question: "It is prayer!" (b. Ta' anith 2a) (Studies in Paul, Exegetical and Theological, page 33).